I would argue that everything has a footprint, and in relative terms, the carbon footprint of air travel is relatively small. That does not mean it shouldn’t be addressed, but I do feel passionately that we have to address the infrastructure of mobility. — Bloomberg
Norman Foster's airport projects have drawn in an increasing amount of business for the 54-year-old firm in the last two decades. Foster went as far last year as to withdraw the firm from Architects Declare, the group his firm joined the year prior to promote a broader set of climate change discussions in the industry.
Foster compared the impacts of air travel to the magnitudes larger footprint caused by meat production. The Pritzker-winning architect's full comments can be viewed in the Bloomberg video below.
18 Comments
Why can old people never imagine a different way of doing things?
Don't blame this on age, blame it on greed.
"We" should do something about climate change. Shouldn't "we"?
it might not be as impactful as meat production, but it sure as hell doesn’t help either...way to go Normy(!)
is there really nothing to what he says? Does that mean air travel must be stopped - not made 0 carbon? That seems so rigid as a conclusion. If covid ever ends it also seems unrealistic.
it seems awfully simplistic to think dealing with climate change means marking out certain bad building types and not building them. very "simcity" approach to mitigating pollution. worth remembering that lots of buildings which once were sustainable no longer are due to modern upgrades to HVAC and lighting, and maybe more importantly to transport networks and living patterns.
Promoting the expansion of high-carbon activities is a direct assault on the environment. Whatever form that takes. The term 'sell out' would come to mind if Foster had ever been environmentally conscious.
I never know what to do with ad hominem attacks like that miles. But responding to the actual point, train stations were once the symbol and soul of dirty transportation, and now they are the poster-child of clean energy and good planning policy. Entire regional plans aiming for sustainability are built on their existence. The only thing that changed was the machinery. The architecture got better, or at least became more like shopping malls, but the problem was never about the architecture. It was about energy and its use in transportation. Why would we presume air travel could not take the same path? Do we ban the design of garages because they contain cars, and then approve them again when they are filled with Teslas? Or should we ban houses (and garages) altogether because they are part of a pattern of unsustainable growth? This particular debate seems weird, like we are talking about this small corner of a problem because most people don't design airports - but we are fine with a much larger and demonstrably bad urban typology because...well, probably out of fear, if we are being honest.
Exactly what environmentally responsive projects has Foster done? As far as "we'll fix it with technology" goes, that hasn't been a resounding success. Coal still isn't gone and now we have radioactive waste and Fukushima events. Increasing air traffic 100% (the 20 year plan) will not be compensated for by decreasing emissions 5 or 10%, let alone address the magnitude of existing problems. As for Teslas, the age of personal transportation should have ended decades ago. We need public transit, not automated personal vehicles. Oh wait, there's no profit in that.
I agree with Will here. I think laying blame on building typology is over-reactive and over-simplified, and laying the blame on Foster specifically feels like anger in search of a scapegoat. Norman Foster deciding to stop designing airports will move the climate change needle exactly zero. IMO, this is small thinking that saps bandwidth from more impactful structural-scope solutions.
I can understand Miles. But profit is what we have now as motivations go. It is I think better than fear, as options go. There is nothing to stop profit from working for the good, even if it seldom does. But that is the point in any case, isn't it, your pissed off because capitalism sucks, and you are right to be angry on that count. That has nothing to do with Foster and airports though. That technology is not the solution to sustainability is abundantly clear by now, but if we are fair, that was not so clear when Foster got his start, and I think there is some room to argue that his work moved the needle in a useful direction. That we are still stubbornly hung up on the altar of energy efficiency is definitely something I agree with you about though. However, I am not sure what the problem is with cars if the world were absolutely and totally zero carbon. Not everyone wants to live in cities, and forcing them to do so is worse than letting capitalism run wild. Unless you think books like The Giver describe a good idea whose time has come?
Just a reminder here - Sir Norman Foster does not engineer fossil fuel- based airplane engine technology. Leave the pressure on those other massive companies who do. I think when we finally see improvements to travel emissions, airport designs will be successful at adapting.
Right, because an individual's choices and behavior have no effect on anything.
Many choices don't, in fact, affect anything. Some do, but this wouldn't be one of them.
Also, if people wouldn't go flying everywhere they wouldn't need to build these airports...
I think Will makes some good points above.
Would be interesting to think about designing an airport/ city area holistically to minimize emissions and environmental impacts. How many airports are 30-60 minutes away from the city center to deal with noise and traffic, basically requiring that many people use personal transportation, associated parking infrastructure, emissions, etc...? Not to mention encouraging further unsustainable development.
I don't know how to justify or analyze a statement like "aviation is only responsible for 5-10% of global emissions." when the entirety of the emissions are generated as a result of a short-term capitalist and colonialist mindset furthered by corrupt politicians and corporations.
Building more airports is short-term capitalist mindset furthered by corrupt politicians and corporations.
You could replace the word "airports" in that sentence with essentially anything and the sentence would still be true. Which I think is the main pushback you're getting here. The object of your ire is capitalism, not airports. Hate the game, not the players.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.